On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:54:45PM -0700, Joel Becker wrote:
> Finally, assuming that the sysfs_dirent/configfs_dirent
> arrangement is pretty fleshed out, I think that perhaps this backing
> store could be joined. Again, no more magic could be added, and it
> would have to handle the sysfs
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:54:45PM -0700, Joel Becker wrote:
Finally, assuming that the sysfs_dirent/configfs_dirent
arrangement is pretty fleshed out, I think that perhaps this backing
store could be joined. Again, no more magic could be added, and it
would have to handle the sysfs and
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:41:36PM -0700, Joel Becker wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:12:24PM -0700, Joel Becker wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 04:28:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Sure, but all that copying-and-pasting really sucks. I'm sure there's
> > > some
> > > way of
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:12:24PM -0700, Joel Becker wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 04:28:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Sure, but all that copying-and-pasting really sucks. I'm sure there's some
> > way of providing the slightly different semantics from the same codebase?
The
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 04:28:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Sure, but all that copying-and-pasting really sucks. I'm sure there's some
> way of providing the slightly different semantics from the same codebase?
What about the backing store? Specifically, sysfs_dirent vs
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 04:28:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Sure, but all that copying-and-pasting really sucks. I'm sure there's some
> way of providing the slightly different semantics from the same codebase?
First, let's look at sharing the primary structures.
[kobject vs
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 04:28:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Sure, but all that copying-and-pasting really sucks. I'm sure there's some
way of providing the slightly different semantics from the same codebase?
First, let's look at sharing the primary structures.
[kobject vs
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 04:28:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Sure, but all that copying-and-pasting really sucks. I'm sure there's some
way of providing the slightly different semantics from the same codebase?
What about the backing store? Specifically, sysfs_dirent vs
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:12:24PM -0700, Joel Becker wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 04:28:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Sure, but all that copying-and-pasting really sucks. I'm sure there's some
way of providing the slightly different semantics from the same codebase?
The final
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:41:36PM -0700, Joel Becker wrote:
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:12:24PM -0700, Joel Becker wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 04:28:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Sure, but all that copying-and-pasting really sucks. I'm sure there's
some
way of providing the
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 04:28:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Joel Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The fact that sysfs and configfs have similar backing stores
> > does not make them the same thing.
> >
>
> Sure, but all that copying-and-pasting really sucks. I'm sure there's some
On Wednesday 31 August 2005 09:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 04:28:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Sure, but all that copying-and-pasting really sucks. I'm sure there's
> > some way of providing the slightly different semantics from the same
> > codebase?
>
> Careful
On Wednesday 31 August 2005 09:28, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Joel Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 08:54:39AM +1000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > But it would be stupid to forbid users from creating directories in
> > > sysfs or to forbid kernel modules from directly
On Wednesday 31 August 2005 09:25, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 August 2005 09:13, Joel Becker wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 08:54:39AM +1000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > But it would be stupid to forbid users from creating directories in
> > > sysfs or to forbid kernel modules
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 04:28:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Sure, but all that copying-and-pasting really sucks. I'm sure there's some
> way of providing the slightly different semantics from the same codebase?
Careful - you've almost reinvented the concept of library, which would
violate
Joel Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 08:54:39AM +1000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > But it would be stupid to forbid users from creating directories in sysfs
> > or
> > to forbid kernel modules from directly tweaking a configfs namespace. Why
> > should the kernel
On Wednesday 31 August 2005 09:13, Joel Becker wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 08:54:39AM +1000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > But it would be stupid to forbid users from creating directories in sysfs
> > or to forbid kernel modules from directly tweaking a configfs namespace.
> > Why should the
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 08:54:39AM +1000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> But it would be stupid to forbid users from creating directories in sysfs or
> to forbid kernel modules from directly tweaking a configfs namespace. Why
> should the kernel not be able to add objects to a directory a user
Hi Andrew,
Configfs blithely ingests kobject.h and kobject.c into itself, just changing
the names. Furthermore, more than half of configfs is copied verbatim from
sysfs, the only difference being the name changes. After undoing the name
changes and adding a few new fields to kobject
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 08:54:39AM +1000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
But it would be stupid to forbid users from creating directories in sysfs or
to forbid kernel modules from directly tweaking a configfs namespace. Why
should the kernel not be able to add objects to a directory a user created?
On Wednesday 31 August 2005 09:13, Joel Becker wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 08:54:39AM +1000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
But it would be stupid to forbid users from creating directories in sysfs
or to forbid kernel modules from directly tweaking a configfs namespace.
Why should the kernel
Joel Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 08:54:39AM +1000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
But it would be stupid to forbid users from creating directories in sysfs
or
to forbid kernel modules from directly tweaking a configfs namespace. Why
should the kernel not be able
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 04:28:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Sure, but all that copying-and-pasting really sucks. I'm sure there's some
way of providing the slightly different semantics from the same codebase?
Careful - you've almost reinvented the concept of library, which would
violate any
On Wednesday 31 August 2005 09:25, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Wednesday 31 August 2005 09:13, Joel Becker wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 08:54:39AM +1000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
But it would be stupid to forbid users from creating directories in
sysfs or to forbid kernel modules from
On Wednesday 31 August 2005 09:28, Andrew Morton wrote:
Joel Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 08:54:39AM +1000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
But it would be stupid to forbid users from creating directories in
sysfs or to forbid kernel modules from directly tweaking a
On Wednesday 31 August 2005 09:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 04:28:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Sure, but all that copying-and-pasting really sucks. I'm sure there's
some way of providing the slightly different semantics from the same
codebase?
Careful - you've
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 04:28:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Joel Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact that sysfs and configfs have similar backing stores
does not make them the same thing.
Sure, but all that copying-and-pasting really sucks. I'm sure there's some
way of
27 matches
Mail list logo
